Prior Permission Required
I would argue that this is not a case for PPR, but a case for people to read the NOTAMs (and properly punishing those who don't).
If anyone allows us to use their airfield then certainly they have a right to impose some conditions, and instead of grumbling we should be happy to comply, lest we loose one more airfield.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are very few real cases for PPR. I can think of:
- A private strip, needs to issue a permission (obviously - would you park in somebody else's drive?)
- An airfield which is public but which has had issues with big fly-ins. Mind you, anybody organising a fly-in to some airport and not contacting the airport first (to check apron space etc) is a Grade A d***head.
- PPR/PNR for Customs
- PPR because it is military. Lots of Greek and Turkish examples here, although they tend to allow local-reg planes to fly there without it, which shows it is just a job creation scam
Otherwise, it tends to be a job creation / self-important exercise.
I agree people should read notams but we have the "UK GA disease" to contend with, where a large % of pilots do not use (or won't use) the internet, fly with the transponder siwtched off, etc. This probably ensures a lot of the PPR airfields continue doing it.
- A private strip, needs to issue a permission (obviously - would you park in somebody else's drive?)
- An airfield which is public but which has had issues with big fly-ins. Mind you, anybody organising a fly-in to some airport and not contacting the airport first (to check apron space etc) is a Grade A d***head.
- PPR/PNR for Customs
- PPR because it is military. Lots of Greek and Turkish examples here, although they tend to allow local-reg planes to fly there without it, which shows it is just a job creation scam
Otherwise, it tends to be a job creation / self-important exercise.
I agree people should read notams but we have the "UK GA disease" to contend with, where a large % of pilots do not use (or won't use) the internet, fly with the transponder siwtched off, etc. This probably ensures a lot of the PPR airfields continue doing it.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Here and there. Here at the moment but soon I'll be there.
Posts: 758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also ...
What about airfields with noise-abatement procedures?
What about airfields like Duxford who may have regular display practice taking place?
What about airfields that are not attended all the time?
What about airfields with restrictions on the number of movements allowed?
There are loads of GOOD reasons for PPR to be required. I've had one or two issues in the past but obtaining PPR has never been a problem and in 99% of cases I could understand why it is required..
What about airfields with noise-abatement procedures?
What about airfields like Duxford who may have regular display practice taking place?
What about airfields that are not attended all the time?
What about airfields with restrictions on the number of movements allowed?
There are loads of GOOD reasons for PPR to be required. I've had one or two issues in the past but obtaining PPR has never been a problem and in 99% of cases I could understand why it is required..
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SkyHawk
I dont object to PPR at all, what I do object to is those that absolutely require PPR by 'phone before setting off.
I have no issue with a field stating if PPR is not requested by telephone there is no guarantee that a landing will be granted - that would be reasonable and clear.
I gave my example because I think it illustrates how silly it is to refuse PPR over the radio simply because the rules say so. That would be and has always been my only grumble.
I appreciate the field might have certain procedures in operation on certain days and an inflight briefing would not make sense. However, the question only needs to be asked have you been before are you familiar with out xyz procedures. If the answer is yes, accept the request, if it is no by all means send the aircraft on its way.
At least grant that most pilots have a modicum of common sense and lets not be weighed down but yet another unnecessary "rule".
Headcorn is a wonderful example of how things can work. There is more often that not lots going on, enough that I guess some places would turn every visitor away unless they had been thoroughly briefed. At Headcorn they dont and it works wonderfully well.
I dont object to PPR at all, what I do object to is those that absolutely require PPR by 'phone before setting off.
I have no issue with a field stating if PPR is not requested by telephone there is no guarantee that a landing will be granted - that would be reasonable and clear.
I gave my example because I think it illustrates how silly it is to refuse PPR over the radio simply because the rules say so. That would be and has always been my only grumble.
I appreciate the field might have certain procedures in operation on certain days and an inflight briefing would not make sense. However, the question only needs to be asked have you been before are you familiar with out xyz procedures. If the answer is yes, accept the request, if it is no by all means send the aircraft on its way.
At least grant that most pilots have a modicum of common sense and lets not be weighed down but yet another unnecessary "rule".
Headcorn is a wonderful example of how things can work. There is more often that not lots going on, enough that I guess some places would turn every visitor away unless they had been thoroughly briefed. At Headcorn they dont and it works wonderfully well.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Here and there. Here at the moment but soon I'll be there.
Posts: 758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the small number of PPR issues that I mentioned was a refusal to land while in the air after I had obtained PPR by phone. Before I took off I made sure I phoned ahead to get PPR but when I was approaching the airfield, some 40 minutes flight time later, the tower suddenly had no record of my call and refused the landing. As you can imagine this was slightly annoying, you can't really argue/convey your point using RT in the same way you can by using a phone.
This was probably just a one-off issue but it gave me a flavour of what a refusal (for whatever reason) of PPR using the radio would be like and I can honestly say that I would prefer a refusal by phone any day of the week.
This was probably just a one-off issue but it gave me a flavour of what a refusal (for whatever reason) of PPR using the radio would be like and I can honestly say that I would prefer a refusal by phone any day of the week.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The Burrow, N53:48:02 W1:48:57, The Tin Tent - EGBS, EGBO
Posts: 2,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is one other, important reason which hopefully none of us will ever need - SAR. If something catastrophic happens and no radio call can be made, or possibly heard, (no matter how unlikely this may be) then the destination airfield has an approximate ETA and likely track to the destination. Whilst this may not be completely accurate it does at least give a starting point and rough guide to where to start looking.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about airfields with noise-abatement procedures?
One other issue is to do with fire rescue and whether your aeroplane has a BRS fitted apparently...at least that is what a lot of people have asked me when I have called for PPR.
Mind you these days, I'd do like Damyns Hall and have an online PPR form which I can fill out when checking my Notams which prints directly to the 'tower'.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, you illustrate the difference between an airfield run to accept traffic, and an airfield run by former ISO 9000 quality managers 
Speaking of "PPR numbers" this reminds me of Bournemouth, where the "handling" is a man with a mobile phone who claimed to me (face to face) that even aircraft going for maintenance must go through him.
If you forget, as in fact nearly everybody going for maintenance does, ATC ask you for your PPR #, you reply you haven't got it, and they let you land and taxi to the maintenance company..... no big deal.
Speaking of "PPR numbers" this reminds me of Bournemouth, where the "handling" is a man with a mobile phone who claimed to me (face to face) that even aircraft going for maintenance must go through him.
If you forget, as in fact nearly everybody going for maintenance does, ATC ask you for your PPR #, you reply you haven't got it, and they let you land and taxi to the maintenance company..... no big deal.
What about airfields with noise-abatement procedures?
What about airfields like Duxford who may have regular display practice taking place?
What about airfields that are not attended all the time?
What about airfields with restrictions on the number of movements allowed?
Ultimately, I don't have any problem at all with PPR where there is a sensible reason; but I think in many cases, it's ridiculous and pointless.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Here and there. Here at the moment but soon I'll be there.
Posts: 758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about airfields with noise-abatement procedures?
What about airfields like Duxford who may have regular display practice taking place?
What about airfields that are not attended all the time?
Well, if the airfield is not in the AIP, and the pilot does not have a flight guide and has not looked at the website...how would he know that it's PPR at all...?
Many of the reasons that seem to be given for PPR being mandatory are for issues that could easily be addressed by a few lines in whatever location the requirement for PPR is announced!
I have never visited a UK airfield without looking for the website first (of course, some don't have them). The PIC is responsible for briefing himself on the flight; a website is the easiest and most comprehensive way of doing this for many locations. They often have full airfield info, charts about noise abatement, details of special events, and more.
People keep saying "there's no guarantee that pilots will check NOTAMs, read the website, or look in the AIP". If you're the kind of pilot who does none of these, how likely is it you'll carefully follow PPR requirements anyway, or even know about them?
Many of the reasons that seem to be given for PPR being mandatory are for issues that could easily be addressed by a few lines in whatever location the requirement for PPR is announced!
I have never visited a UK airfield without looking for the website first (of course, some don't have them). The PIC is responsible for briefing himself on the flight; a website is the easiest and most comprehensive way of doing this for many locations. They often have full airfield info, charts about noise abatement, details of special events, and more.
People keep saying "there's no guarantee that pilots will check NOTAMs, read the website, or look in the AIP". If you're the kind of pilot who does none of these, how likely is it you'll carefully follow PPR requirements anyway, or even know about them?
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Here and there. Here at the moment but soon I'll be there.
Posts: 758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By actually speaking to visitors the guys running the airfield, and ultimately responsible for the safe and continued operation of the airfield, know that they understand any local issues and procedures. Without speaking to them there will always be doubt about them knowing the facts.
Another example, at the gliding airfield I was once based at PPR is required. This was to ensure someone would be there to 'help' visitors but the primary reason is to ensure that visitors knew about how the gliding operations worked, no overhead joins, etc. You can attempt to write down on a website this information but it cannot beat actually explaining it in person, and making adjustments to the brief to cover certain short term events. Example, one day they may have some extra activity due to a visiting club, or there may be more cable launches due to no tug pilot, etc.
Another example, at the gliding airfield I was once based at PPR is required. This was to ensure someone would be there to 'help' visitors but the primary reason is to ensure that visitors knew about how the gliding operations worked, no overhead joins, etc. You can attempt to write down on a website this information but it cannot beat actually explaining it in person, and making adjustments to the brief to cover certain short term events. Example, one day they may have some extra activity due to a visiting club, or there may be more cable launches due to no tug pilot, etc.
As I say, some places do have valid reasons for PPR (and your gliding site is a great example); what I'm trying to make a point about is places that seem to insist upon it for no good reason.
For example, my PPR briefing for Fairoaks consisted of "Don't fly into the crane thats miles away from the airport, and don't fly into the Heathrow zone". Gosh, thanks, if I hadn't had that briefing I'd have considered busting Heathrow after bouncing off the crane to be plan A...
For example, my PPR briefing for Fairoaks consisted of "Don't fly into the crane thats miles away from the airport, and don't fly into the Heathrow zone". Gosh, thanks, if I hadn't had that briefing I'd have considered busting Heathrow after bouncing off the crane to be plan A...
As I say, some places to have valid reasons for PPR; what I'm trying to make a point about is places that seem to insist upon it for no good reason.
For example, my PPR briefing for Fairoaks consisted of "Don't fly into the crane thats miles away from the airport, and don't fly into the Heathrow zone". Gosh, thanks, if I hadn't had that briefing I'd have considered busting Heathrow after bouncing off the crane to be plan A...
I don't think it's fair to disregard the requirements of the owner or operator of an airfield just because I think they're being silly. It's their airfield, not mine.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What if their insurance (or other legal issue) requires them to brief pilots on each and every occasion?
The airport has a duty to disclose (by publication via established aviation channels i.e. notams and the AIP) unusually dangerous things.
Are you looking at an insurance policy which stipulates PPR? If so, please post details.
I don't think it's fair to disregard the requirements of the owner or operator of an airfield just because I think they're being silly. It's their airfield, not mine.
Duxford got a bad reputation for their "phone-only PPR" policy (which I witnessed first hand) and stopped it, a couple of years ago. They lost a lot of business in the meantime.
I have obtained PPR hundreds of times and at least 99% of the time there is no safety-relevant briefing involved. It's just a formality. They may as well knock up a website where you enter your details and it produces a PPR number
And the ATCO has a red button which he presses when somebody crashes on the runway and blocks it, and the button disconnects mains power from the server Bournemouth could sell PPR numbers for £20 a pop, payable by CC or (hey this is really adventurous) by Paypal. Think of the manpower which would be saved - 1 person at Bournemouth, and 1 person at the accounts office at East Midlands.
you have a pilot who is the Captain, and it is his decision what to do.
Correct, on the basis it is their bouncy castle, but we remain entitled to take the micky, where appropriate.
Ah, the "I'm captain and I have the legal right to do whatever I want" argument.
Take the mick all you want. And that entitles you to ignore the conditions a service provider sets for use of their service?
FredACheck, you seem to have a better wording for the thoughts I already posted this morning:
On second thought, you have also wondered about the cause, and might well be right about size of ego being a factor.
Edit @Katamarino: it is not for the users of a service to judge if its conditions are "in place". You take them, or you leave them and fly elsewhere. Let the market decide.
If anyone allows us to use their airfield then certainly they have a right to impose some conditions, and instead of grumbling we should be happy to comply
Edit @Katamarino: it is not for the users of a service to judge if its conditions are "in place". You take them, or you leave them and fly elsewhere. Let the market decide.
Jan; some people blindly accept rules "because it's the rules". Other, more thoughtful people, will still follow the rules but are perfectly at liberty to question their logic and usefulness...